Torts - affirmative duty to act

[phillyboy101]

Just a question about the tort affirmative duty to act issues. So there's 'special relationship' duties, and then theres landover/invitee/licensee duties. So i guess what I'm wonding is categorically are is landowner/invitee relationship a subcategory of one of these special relationships? For example, in a slip-and-fall question, is there negligence on the store owner on two theories - employer/customer relationsip and landowner/invitee theory? Or should these be categorized as two alternative affirmative duties to act, both of which apply in this situation.

Thanks

[ineptimusprime]

I wondered about this too. The owner/invitee and special relationship are functionally the same thing, but are they in any way different?

If it came up on an exam, I'd either quickly talk about both of them, or somehow conflate the two into one analysis.

[rustyyoda]

I would categorize them as alternatives in the interest of time/efficiency. I would say something like, "Defendant owed a duty to plaintiff based on the special relationship between them: business invitor-invitee recognized in the Restatement. Alternatively, the plaintiff can also argue that the defendant owed a duty based on the employer and customer relationship. Because both work to establish a duty in this case, either would be sufficient to meet the element of duty."